You know how, when you hear a recording of yourself, it never sounds like you?

I think that must be what causes the nutbars to freak out about an article than mostly relies on verbatim quotes from people they've elected their leaders.

The EPA is a federal agency that was created to enforce U.S. law before Agenda 21 was even drafted. If they arrest someone you know or just read about in a blog/unsourced chain email, that's because they broke the law. Of the U.S. We can fine you or put you in jail for that, even if you don't agree with the law. See, for instance, the plurality of American prisoners behind bars for drugs.

Well to Any one who knows not what Agenda 21 is..
Here is a "work in progress" example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzS4BE_oaLc
It is a phili Sheriff talking about the amazing changes..ok. Its exactly what this post was about so, thought i would share.
Good luck to all. Bike paths have nothing to do with tyranny.

Walking is good exercise. This article is trash. Agenda 21 is real and is more than a pipe dream. Just research local authorities. Many are implementing Agenda 21 recommendations. Only one or two States have woken up and rejected the whole mess. This scheme is a move toward the NWO and implementation of eugenicist dreams. Another name might be familiar - Nazis. Only excuse for such an article would be head buried in sand.

Stop beating on the inbred retarded strawman. We get it. The GOP has a great many tin-foil hat wearing nutjobs, especially in the South. Frankly I prefer it this way. In the past, nutjobs like this would fall into a spiral of self-isolation and crazy, eventually leading them to form their own survivalist militia and end in some kind of suicidal shoot-out with the Feds. Now, with the advent of the Internet, they can find likeminded nutjobs to sustain their paranoia, then get political and make the GOP completely unelectable. For that reason alone, I salute these "patriots".

Ordinarily I'd say you have a point, except the inbred retarded strawman is gaining more and more influence on GOP party platform decision, as well as determining which bills they'll oppose, and which they won't. The far right punches well above it's weight in terms of guiding the party, largely because many GOP Reps and Senators have districts or states that are so deeply "red" that they have far more to fear from a primary challenge than they do from even a moderate Democrat challenging them in the general.

Your biased report is very transparent that you are a NWO SELLOUT! UN AGENDA 21 is an evil plan to take our property rights away!!! Stop lying and hiding behind a computer screen like a child molester.
Ask Andrew Worde if the "non binding" regulations imposed are not enforceable. He fought and beat the courts twice so they sent in the EPA (Agenda 21) to fine him $10,000.00 and locked his butt up for a month. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! They do enforce it so stop lying!

Soft Despotism, Regionalism and the Future of the Suburbs~
In the mid-1800s, Alexis de Toqueville, a French political thinker and historian, shared his thoughts about how Americans might lose their sovereignty if they became apathetic and lost their civic virtue. In his book called Democracy in America, de Toqueville describes man’s conflicting desire to be led while at the same time wanting to remain free from shackling rules and regulations. Read more...http://www.exurbiachronicles.com/?p=615

No one has yet had the nerve to demand some sort of rent from the DOT for erecting barriers to my mobility, in the public right of way, at the behest of the automobile, oil and finance and trucking industries. I'm talking about the "this land is my land, this land is your land" claptrap. And yet I'm being literally forced to purchase (and usually finance) an automobile, gasoline, insurance costing many thousands of dollars to leave my house.

Those morons believe that a 'nice to have' list created by an overseas think tank 20 years ago is more of a threat to our liberties than the drafting of laws and purchase of our government by these industries?

Sorry the south, You lot are mad. (and abjectly stupid for believing that bs)

The question here is, Who pays and who plays? Walking or biking is not a viable transportation alternative for the average struggling person. The UN's Great Satan Agenda 17 conspiracy is a typical American substitute for the class-warfare argument: Hey you fat-in-the-pocket-upper-middle-class-suburban-health-nut-weirdos who are always forcing your cultural mores down our throats and making fun of us for eating fatback, why should us folks pay for your healthy recreational workouts?

And an expensive to buy, expensive to run, expensive to maintain and expensive to insure automobile is a viable transportation means for the average struggling person?
Yes, reducing your car use may mean living closer to your work, but imagine all the extra money (let alone health) you would have! And that has got to be good for the economy!

Recognise the bicycle as utilitarian not a sporting device. Heck, you could afford a bicycle for going to the shops and another for racing for what some pay in a years worth of car repair bills.

It can be harder than you think to find work where you live, and visa versa. And if you want to buy fresh groceries, chances are you won't find a neighborhood market within walking distance - you can load your bags onto busses or try to balance them on your bike, but few are willing to take the extra time when there aren't many bike lanes or direct bus routes to supermarkets to start with, and Americans typically work insane hours. If you're working nights there probably aren't buses available, and if you're working thirteen hours a night (as is my significant other), you probably don't want to add an hour-long bike-ride to both ends of your shift. A friend of mine used to ride for three hours on a few different buses to come and visit me at my college, when a direct car ride could have got him there in 15 minutes. There's a reason the U.S. is the one country where the poorest people are also the fattest people - you're sure to find a liquor store or fast-food joint around the corner, but few of the essentials are as close. Add to this the general breakdown of community, the media fetish to keep people mindful of violent acts whenever they occur throughout the country, and middle-classers are just frankly terrified of walking very far. Funding more direct and available public transit may help to restore a sense of community - in all honesty, I think the opposition is due much more to a fear of meeting other people face-to-face than anything else.

Walking and biking are not viable options for *many* Americans...many, many more than you'll find in most European countries. Many of us live in the north where winters are much worse than what you'll experience in places like England. To add, many of us travel 15, 20, even 60 miles one way to work. Many of us even travel *for* work. For those of us who *would* bike commute (I am a cyclist), we do not have safe paths on which to ride in most places, nor do we have showers at work. Some of us can't get into the door before working hours because of security systems that we aren't allowed access to.

Right now, many states are experiencing high wind gusts and rain due the hurricane in the east. In the winter, we will have wind chills of well below 0 F. Snow is plowed into those areas where bikes *could* go, but can no longer due to these barriers.

Before applying your European values and ways of life to America and belittling us for using automobiles, recognize that the United States is not a one-size-fits-all nation. Culture varies greatly from county to county, even from city to city. Weather is diversely different. Most states don't have public transit systems even though we would like them. In Detroit, even if we had a decent system, we would fear for our safety.

Nothing to do with a political agenda but walking/cycling paths along highways are hideous and unpleasant to use - not a tranquil, scenic experience at all. They are cheap to build because the land is available. Eugene, Oregon has exemplary bike and walking paths - away from the highway for the most part and along the riverfront - but not just a scenic byway - it's truly functional for getting from one place to another. Denver's Cherry Creek bicycle route is also worthy model.

"non sequitur" - the conclusion does not follow; a series of illogical statements. I'd really like to see a better connection between improved public transport in America and World Government. This article was not up-to-standard, Economist.

Public transport? You come down to Sao Paulo, here in Brazil and find out what "bad traffic" means! Authorities don't give a damn about this, of course, if you calculate that this city has about 7 million vehicles and supposing these 7 million move per day at about 1 km./h or are at a standstill in jams during 1 hour, (of course not ALL at the same time... but each during one part of the day) and their consumption of whatever fuel (we've got LPG + Alcohol + Gasoline + Diesel)is approximately 1 liter, then we have 7 million liters per day. Taxes on fuel go up to 40%, so calculate how much the government is levying just by NOT doing anything!!!!! And which government is willing to diminsh its "profits"???

Reading about the "anti-Agenda 21 paranoia," I'm reminded of a remark by Edmund Burke that Americans "snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze." This radical libertarianism has the salutary effect of warding off political tyranny (while countenancing economic tyranny), but I believe it nevertheless produces flawed citizens: people who, in the name of liberty, repudiate any sense of responsibility, any sense of obligation, as members of a community.

This comment neglects to acknowledge that those of the conservative political persuasion are far more likely to donate to charitable organizations or personally donate their time to their respective communities than their liberal counterparts, who are statistically more likely to rely on government to do "good work".

Yes, I'm told that, in their private giving, conservatives tend to be more generous than liberals; but by their anti-communitarian attitude, conservatives can more than cancel out their private generosity. Individual acts of charity can never take the place of concerted public action to address problems of the community. And concerted public action is precisely what conservatives oppose. Inevitably, their stated reasons for doing so are variations on the same theme: "You're infringing on my liberty." Dropping loose change into a beggar's wooden bowl is the act of a free person, but it wouldn't begin to atone for reductions in food stamps, any more than a raindrop would make up for the loss of an ocean.

Liberals demand that others give money. If those others cannot afford to give, or if the pace of giving threatens the health of the economy/government, the liberals loudly accuse them of racism or of not having a heart. Then the liberals publicly congratulate themselves on selfless generosity.

You say that "[l]iberals demand that others give money." I'm not sure that's a fair way of putting it. To be sure, liberals demand that others contribute to the extent they're able to do so (and we can always quibble over the extent of this ability), but liberals do not except themselves from this requirement of contributing to the community. Liberals believe, more than conservatives, in the imposition of taxes, the revenues from which are to be applied to alleviate problems of the community. Such taxes fall on both liberals and conservatives. There's a vast difference between saying, "You should pay," and saying, "You and I both should pay." I can with somewhat greater justification "congratulate myself on my generosity" if I say the latter than if I say the former.

I had to smile at your statement that conservatives give their money "relatively quietly." Nowadays, it seems to be a favorite talking point of conservatives that they give more than liberals.

Woodvil
49% of the wage earners in the U.S. do not pay income taxes. Therefore for many it is not a case of "You and I pay", but rather "I do not pay, and I am not satisfied with the amount that you are currently paying."

And I am being polite in characterizing it as "I am not satisfied". Oftentimes those who are paying are scolded, insulted, accused of racism and of greed if they do not want to pay more, or do not want to pay for something that they vehemently object to in the first place.

Earlier you said "by their anti-communitarian attitude, conservatives can more than cancel out their private generosity."
and
"Individual acts of charity can never take the place of concerted public action to address problems of the community."

It's true that approximately 49% of all tax-filing units have a positive income-tax liability, but we have no reason to suppose that this 49% consists entirely of liberals and that the remaining 51% consists entirely of conservatives. Of course liberals believe in progressive taxation, but depending on their level of income, the progressive rates are good or bad for them, just as for anyone else. I don't see how the 49% figure justifies your characterization of liberals as saying simply, "You should pay." Instead, liberals say something significantly different: "You and I both should pay if we have income above a certain level---and the greater our income, the more you and I should pay."

You ask me to elaborate on the basis for my beliefs that "by their anti-communitarian attitude, conservatives can more than cancel out their generosity" and that "[i]ndividual acts of charity can never take the place of concerted public action to address problems of the community." Perhaps the best way for me to respond is to use David Koch as an example. No doubt you've heard of David Koch, the ultra-conservative billionaire, a major financial backer of Governor Scott Walker and various libertarian causes. Koch, as I understand, is a very generous man, the foremost philanthropist in New York City. He's given many millions of dollars, for instance, to the American Ballet Theater. He's donated a hundred million dollars to upgrade Lincoln Center's New York State Theatre. He's given twenty million dollars to the American Museum of Natural History. He has pledged at least ten million dollars to rennovate the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

So, evidently, Koch is a good man, a generous man---but his politics are wretched, and the wretchedness consists in his extreme and irrational prejudice against government. He's in his 70s now, and in the 1980s he ran for vice-president on the Libertarian ticket, calling for the elimination of Social Security, welfare, taxes, public schools, and interstate highways. Like many conservatives nowadays, Koch evidently doesn't believe in government, and because he doesn't believe in government, he doesn't believe in taxes. He's categorically opposed to any effort by people to address social ills collectively, through their government. This man's faith in the private sector is so absolute and unqualified as to amount to dangerous idealism, if not anarchy.

As for me, I don't think government can exist without taxes, and I don't think civil society can exist without government. And my experience with human nature suggests to me that if we eliminated food stamps and other forms of welfare, individual acts of charity wouldn't come close to picking up the slack. Common sense suggests that if individual acts of charity were indeed sufficient, these welfare programs wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. With food stamps eliminated, many would go hungry---but those fountains would dance delightfully outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art. With Medicaid eliminated, many would fall ill and die---but that T-Rex skeleton in the dinosaur wing of the American Museum of Natural History sure would be an impressive sight.

This is a good dialogue, and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. There is a lot of food for thought here.

Regarding the 49% vs 51% divide, I do not presume that all are in one camp or another, only that the demographics of those groups tend to favor one camp or another. I had actually included commentary to that effect, but then removed it to keep the post short. I’m glad for the opportunity however to discuss these topics more thoroughly.

The progressive tax rate discussion is complex to say the least, and the arguments used to justify or oppose them are equally complex, and often disingenuous. I have several broad themes to propose, notwithstanding the shrieking from extreme ends of both wings. It is important that we discount the shrieking, in order to get to the core of the larger group narratives.

First, most conservatives, even if reluctantly, are willing to live with graduated tax rates. My proof? It has been so for decades, and although there has been grousing, it is usually over the amount of the stair steps and not the existence of the stair steps.

Second, conservatives are not against the existence of government. If they were, they would be anarchists, not conservatives. Conservatives are in favor of limited government. The scope of increased government involvement is staggering if the progression is viewed over the decades. Some of that involvement is good, and some is not so good. Today’s conservative basically has said “this is too far, we need to go back to 2008 at a minimum and need to consider going back or modifying some of the other efforts which are not working”.

Third, conservatives believe that none of us will be able to sustain our political belief system if we don’t stop borrowing and don’t ever get around to paying our bills. This dovetails with the limited government argument. Whether or not you agree with limited government, it is coming one way or another because we can’t keep paying for the one we have. Conservatives believe it would be much much wiser for us to collectively choose how we want our government to get smaller, in an orderly, controlled and rational way, rather than be forced by emergency or crisis. Most systems can absorb change, but very few are able to absorb tremendous change all at once. In this regard conservatives are working very hard to prevent chaos and anarchy. Graduated reductions or eliminations of programs or services gives organizations, businesses, families, and individuals time to absorb, adjust, plan, and implement a change. As a crude example, it would stink if my employer told me today that in 6 months my job will be gone, but it would be a crisis if my employer told me today that my job will be gone at the end of the day. Multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, and you have the difference between a society in the process of difficult change and a society in serious upheaval with its stability threatened.

Some people believe we can pay for our current government by taxing the rich and corporations more. That has never worked. It destroys jobs, and leads to more desperation, not less. This is a fundamental belief of many conservatives, many/most of which are not opposed to helping the less privileged. Forced redistribution of wealth simply doesn’t work beyond a certain point, and insistence on moving beyond that point eventually destroys the entire system. You end up with two men walking with a cane rather than one with a cane who occasionally gets to lean on another man who walks without a cane.
On the other hand, poor people in America’s wealthy society fare much better than poor people in an American society that is not wealthy. Both are better off in the wealthy society. America’s poor have more living space than the European _middle_ class. America’s poor have significantly higher rates of nutrition and health and literacy than the _average_ African. By most measures, America’s poor are better off than the average persons in most other countries of the world. We should be celebrating this unprecedented historical success rather than spiritually destroying ourselves with the false narrative that America is unfeeling towards the lesser privileged members of its society.

This is getting overly long. Regarding Mr Koch, you have educated me more about him than I ever knew before (which was that he was rich, donated to a lot of causes, and is a favorite whipping boy of the leftists). I appreciate that you have painted a three dimensional picture of him for me. All I can say is that he sounds like a libertarian, not a conservative. There are different names for a reason.
Thanks for the opportunity to converse.

After making my case as best as I can, I should draw back a little and acknowledge, as you point out, that I'm painting with a broad roller. Not all conservatives are Agenda 21ers or radical libertarians. And while decrying the excesses in conservative rhetoric, I'd say I'm like most Americans: I have both conservative and liberal sympathies. I understand, for example, that if we spend too much, we'll run out of money and won't be able to help anyone.

... "radical libertarianism has the salutary effect of warding off political tyranny" ? Well, considering that the Republican president George W. created more tyranny, more limits and threats to our liberty than the UN ever did (or could), and the Republicans of Georgia loved him, this whole thing about Agenda 21 is being used cynically by rogues who try to fool people into seeing them as champions of liberty, when really they want total control ("a permanent Conservative majority") and are willing to lie and cheat to get it.
Liberals are the true guardians of Liberty. And (as my bumper sticker says) the Founding Fathers were liberals and radicals, not conservatives.

"To be sure, liberals demand that others contribute to the extent they're able to do so (and we can always quibble over the extent of this ability), but liberals do not except themselves from this requirement of contributing to the community."

Which goes against the American principle of freedom of choice.

As a conservative, I can tell you that I am not necessarily against raising taxes. I *am* against raising taxes when our government continuously demonstrates their inability to spend wisely and effectively. We've consistently thrown more money at schools, for example, yet our education has gotten worse. Money is the not the solution. It may be one element, but it is *not* the solution. In fact, in America, giving my money often contributes to increased waste without real results.

You say that the requirement of "contributing to the community" "goes against the American principle of freedom of choice." In this context, "contributing to the community" means paying taxes. I perceive that you hold a typical conservative view: taxes are an un-American assault on liberty, and therefore government, the existence of which depends on taxation, is an un-American assault on liberty. When one calls a conservative on this extreme rhetoric, the response typically is the conservative two-step: "I didn't really mean what I said, because if I meant what I said, I'd be an anarchist."

As for the inefficacy of increased school funding, no matter where you look, you'll always find money badly spent. The private sector is no better--think of credit default swaps, for example, the devastating effects of which we are feeling to this day. Using instances of wasteful and governmental spending as a reason to give up on government is, I believe, a cop-out, a lazy skepticism that we can't afford. Instead, we should do the hard thing: we should continually be having a discussion about whether specific line-item expenditures are worthwhile--realizing, as you say, that money is not always the solution. And we should candidly acknowledge that getting our debt and deficits under control will require a combination of increased tax revenues and prudent spending cuts.

Sure, that is why the south is always at the bottom of every educational index in the USA.

Traveling through the south I have seen both incredible hospitality (mostly in Georgia) and incredible hostility towards outsiders (mostly in Alabama). But when the south is stil characterized by racial inequality and has a higher homicide rate than any other grouping of states, any reasonable person would conclude that the South is not a particularly friendly place.

Bottom compared to who? they white population is on par with NY, MA CA OH. Does the south still have racial inequality yes it does but I can sum it up this way the South has a great disdain for the back race but likes them as individuals, Northern states professes to like the race but hates the individual.
Homicide rate ?? Surly you jest of the top 10 cities for murders only 2 are in the south. suggest your bigotry is showing

If you are skeptical of their numbers, you can cross reference them with any source you want.

As a grouping of states, the South is on the bottom in just about everything. The education in Georgia is not too bad, but still below average. The rest of the southern states are very much at the bottom compared to the rest of the USA. Of the lowest ten states in terms of educational attainment, nine are in the south (and the other is Nevada). If you purely compare white populations, the South looks slightly better (Texas looks a lot better) but is still below the national average (except for Texas). The white people in the south are NOT on par with those in NY, MA, or CA. Ohio is barely average, and in terms of education the Southern whites as a whole are not even on par with Ohio.

I'm talking about states, not just cities. Of the top ten states for homicides, six are in the South. More importantly, every southern state has a higher homicide rate than the national average.

Southerners also have the lowest life expectancies in the USA and that does not change if you only compare whites.

It is pretty amusing that I know many southerners who try to insist that it is simply the black people who drag the South down and think that we should just ignore them and only compare white people even though even the whites in the south can't compete with those elsewhere.

I can say that I have great disdain for the American south, but I don't have anything against southerners as individuals. Some of my best friends in university were from North Carolina.

How am I comparing apples and oranges? Is there something that makes the southern states fundamentally different from the states in the west, midwest, and northeast? Of the four regions of the USA, the South scores the lowest on virtually every positive criteria and scores the highest on every negative criteria. That is simply a fact.

This has nothing to do with blacks and whites. For instance, on average the black people in the northeast are better educated than the white people in the south.

If you looked at that nice link I sent you, you can actually look at data for particular races. So yes, if you compare the whites in the south with the whites anywhere else; they are less educated. The blacks are still less educated than the whites anywhere, but that doesn't change the above fact.

Do you suggest that the mere proximity of a large number of black people drags down the various indicators for the whites in the south? That can't be true either, because Texas has lots of poorly educated blacks and latinos, but their white population IS better educated than the national average. The rest of the South is just crap for all races.

If you think the South is just a mess because of the blacks why don't you stop boasting about it and leave?

Yes, you're right, it's the worst place on planet Earth, and we don't deserve the time and effort you've wasted on us. We'll never be worthy of you, nor acheive your Utopian expectations, and it's just too embarrassing to continue. So please, please just leave the area as quickly as possible and let us wallow in squalid misery and stop trying to save us from our wretchedness.
And please tell your friends how awful it is and to stop moving here in droves, year after year, in a fruitless attempt to turn the South into wherever they're from.